VETERRINAY AND MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE. 289 
and from holding himself out to be the agent of the plaintiff for the 
sale of the pills. It appeared that the defendant manufactured the 
pills in question for the cure of consumption and other pulmonary 
complaints, and, to puff them off, he published advertisements and 
circulated handbills so worded as to lead the public to suppose they 
were the pills of Sir James Clark, who enjoys a great reputation 
in pulmonary disorders, having written some treatises on the subject. 
One of the advertisements was headed, “ By her Majesty’s per- 
mission, Sir J. Clark‘s Consumptive Pills, a certain cure for con- 
sumption, and an unfailing remedy for coughs, asthma, difficulty of 
breathing, &c. and then followed a dissertation on pulmonary 
disorders and an eulogy of the pills; and at the foot, “ Agent, Mr. R. 
Freeman, Kennington-road, and to be had of any medicine vender. 
2s. 9d.” There was also a representation of the royal arms after 
the words “Her Majesty’s permission.” Another advertisement 
was in the form of an apology to the medical profession for selling 
a patent medicine. The defendant had spelt the name of Clark 
with an e at the end ; but the intention appeared to be to induce the 
public to believe that the pills were manufactured and sold under 
the direction of Sir James Clark. 
In support of the application, an affidavit of the plaintiff was 
read, in which he stated that he had caused the pills to be analyzed, 
iand had found that they contained antimony and mercury, which 
were very injurious in many cases of consumption. He had re- 
ceived several letters from parties in the country, some asking him 
how they were to use the pills, and others complaining of the ill 
consequences which had followed from the use of them. It was 
contended, that as it was not only a gross imposition on the public 
to represent the pills as the plaintiff’s, but as it would also tend to 
injure the reputation and practice of the plaintiff, the court ought 
to interfere by injunction. The defendant had no right to use the 
plaintiff’s name to enhance the value of his own wares, or to hold 
himself out as the agent of the plaintiff in the sale of a quack me- 
dicine. The conduct of the defendant gave the plaintiff a right of 
Action against him; and where damages were recoverable in an 
action at law, the court would grant an injunction. In the case of 
“ Lord Byron v. Johnston” (2 Meriv. 29), Lord Eldon granted an 
injunction to restrain the defendant from selling some poems as 
Lord Byron’s which were sworn not to be his ; and so here the 
court ought to restrain the defendant from selling pills as the plain- 
tiff’s which were not his. — The Master of the Rolls thought he 
had not jurisdiction to interfere. There could not, he said, be any 
injury to property so as to induce the court to interfere. An 
attempt to impute to Sir James Clark that he had any thing to do 
with a quack medicine was, perhaps, defamatory to his character, 
